In the mind of Republicans? Absolutely.

That's the absolute beauty of the niche of conservative blogs and journalism. They get to claim the media has a liberal bias and then anytime a conservative paper or news channel or blog makes a mistake and is called out on it, they can go out and blame it all as an attack on conservatives by liberal elitists.

It's a rather neat and simple system. It is, of course, a giant joke. But, a tidy narrative nonetheless.

What NotW did was beyond the scope of legality in the UK. Murdoch hoped that by shutting down the paper he could preserve his deal for BSkyB. There was nothing compassionate about his move here. He simply wanted to protect his assets. The British public, as well as British papers and television, clearly saw through this ruse and continued to pound News International about their actions and complicity in the NotW scandal. After a couple of days of further pressure, Murdoch had to back out of the BSkyB deal and there is now talk that News International will be investigated to see if they are "fit & proper" enough to remain as 39% shareholders of BSkyB.

But just remember evcricket, its that evil-government run BBC that is the problem. Of course, the article here forgets to point out that the government in the UK is a coalition-run British Parliament with a plurality majority of conservatives are the big baddies here. It also fails to point out that the BBC is funded by the government through TV licenses, but is itself an independent organization.

I wouldn't actually expect people on this blog to do any work with regards to facts. Obama has been enforcing the border and deporting more illegals than during the highest points of the Bush Administration:
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/obama-41524-im...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101105/us_ac/7132304...
http://newsessentials.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/ob...

Keep talking though as if he's doing nothing when the facts clearly state otherwise. Waiting for excuses in 3...2...1...

"A mid-afternoon update from Winnebago County had Prosser holding on to his seat by 40 votes, when The Associated Press updated vote totals to factor in 710 votes for the incumbent and 466 for Kloppenburg. Minutes later, though, Grant County put out a new total that had Prosser losing 113 previously counted votes as Kloppenburg's total stayed steady. And in three more counties - Portage, Door and Iowa - the Kloppenburg netted a total of 133 votes. More county totals are expected to roll in throughout the night."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Wis-outc...

Only would someone so blind as to not see the fact the link is to THE WISCONSIN STATE ELECTIONS BOARD RULES ON RECOUNTS say that I'm wrong for simply copying down what it said.

I took a look at your link to Punditwhatever. One of the sub-links mentioned that one of the reasons to suspect fraud was because students had been requested to work at the polls in Madison since they were expecting higher than average turnout. The site claimed this was illegal, and it is absolutely 100% legal under any set of elections laws that you want to bring out. States rarely if ever pay for poll workers and most are volunteers from the local area. But, of course, you knew that since you are totally up to speed on election law.

Oh, and since I'm not the one alleging the fraud, the heavy lifting is on you. Since I assume you have not gone to law school, let me break how this court case is going to go down for you in layman's terms. Those asserting a claim of fraud have to meet an initial burden of producing evidence that there was in fact fraudulent voting issues surround the election in Wisconsin. If this is the evidence that the WI GOP are going to base the recount claim on, let me explain to you what any judge in any county in the state will do: "Counsel, is this all of the evidence on your claim of elections fraud?" "Yes it is your honor." "Counsel for the defense, do you have any motions to make?" "Yes, we do your honor. We request this case be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of production on its claim of election fraud, nor has plaintiff produced enough evidence to shift the burden to defendant to produce evidence to rebut Plaintiff's cause of action." "After reviewing all the relevant evidence produced in this matter, motion for summary judgment is granted."

You may hate the outcome of this election all you want, but the fact still stands: Kloppenburg won, Prosser lost. If Prosser wants a recount, he has a right to it. But that money to pay the elections workers to re-tabulate all the votes? That comes directly out of the state budget, not Prosser's funds as explicitly dictated by Wisconsin state recount election law.

Hate on me all you want. It won't change anything. You can say goodbye to Mr. Walker's illegal law stripping collective bargaining rights. And then, when he actually tries to lay off union workers, you can kiss the governorship and any majority in the state senate goodbye for the next 20 years as no one will trust the WI Republican Party again.

What's there to respond to? It's a completely Republican run newspaper in suburban Virginia run by Phil Anschutz citing one random conservative blog that is reposting its own stories.

Absolutely no truth to it until actual real reporters find evidence of ballot destruction.

Yeah... I'm not going to trust one conservative blog re-posting it's own stories about voter fraud. They haven't linked to a single reputable news source that says any of this, so until I see some real journalists saying ballots were destroyed, there's absolutely no story.

Oh, and student volunteers are completely legal at polling stations. Anyone can volunteer at polling stations in order to aid voters.

And most importantly, a recount costs 0 money? Really? So...who's going to pay all the people at the city clerk offices that are going to have to work extra hours to recount the votes? The money is magically going to appear out of thin air? No. If you actually have read the Wisconsin election laws you would know that for any election where the vote difference is less than 0.5% of the total votes cast, the party requesting the recount must do so within 3 days of the official results. The state will pay for the recount in these situations. For any recount with a vote margin is greater than 0.5%-2% of total votes cast, the requesting party must pay $5 per ward to be recounted. Anything over 2%, it is the anticipated full cost of reimbursement for recounting that the candidate requesting the recount must pay. It's not a particularly huge sum of money, but by Wisconsin law, given the closeness of this particular race, the state will be required to pay for the recount.

But, of course, this assumes you've actually read Wisconsin election law.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Recount_law... http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=11...

This is going to be my last post of the evening as I actually have other things to do with my time than spend 3 hours dealing with you lovely people.

I'm in fact very pro-Constitution (you know, the whole lawyer thing), I'm not anti-Capitalist as I'm for a mix of both capitalism and socialism.

And just because you don't like my political views does not make me anti-American. I have a right to my views and I could just as easily call you anti-American for your views on unionization, election funding, and continued calling of other people who you disagree with anti-American. Of course, I actually happen to respect your viewpoints, no matter how misinformed or uneducated they may be. You have an absolute right to association with any political group you like and that's more than fine with me.

I know, right? Those photos of him on the Harvard Law Review and at Columbia are definitely not proof that he went there. Nor are the degrees that he has and the records offices show he has.

Also, if you believe that all Ivy League schools are full of socialists, you are very very mistaken. Of course, since you probably can't even dare to step foot on one of the campuses, you choose to ad hominem attack those who do and have attended those universities.

This country has held that corporations are private individuals, with regards to free speech and funding. As a result, they are one of these people you speak of...they just happen to be a particularly large person.

Just because corporations pass the tax along to the consumer doesn't mean it's illegal. The states and federal government have found that to be a productive way of raising revenues and it is perfectly legal. It's not stealing and the states and federal government are simply exercising their right to tax what they want.

I don't like classes. I hate them, but I recognize that they exist. If you hate classes, you would approve of the higher tax rates I am suggesting because that would help lower the income gap between the various classes.

And spending isn't a problem when you have enough tax revenue to pay for things.

And that's why I said I'm not a communist. I'm a socialist.

Again, I said a hybridization. I do believe in private property, but limited private property. By having a higher tax rate, you limit the amount of private property for everyone and then use the additional government money to fund actually productive social programs that are a hallmark of communist/socialist theory.